My recent post titled "Canada must become a global superpower" has quickly become one of my most-read posts in the almost 12 years that I have been writing this daily blog. Within a few days, it quickly got to 11x the number of daily views that I typically get.
One of the points that I made was about Canada's population, and specifically the target set by the Century Initiative of 100 million Canadians by 2100. Today I'd like to expand on this point, because I'm seeing more people talk about it on the socials.
At the time of writing this post, Canada's official population clock from Statistics Canada was sitting at 41,591,151 people. So to reach 100 million in the next 75 years, it would mean we would need to grow our population by 58,408,861 people. At first glance, this seems like a big number. And to some, it has proven to be an unsettling proposition. But 75 years is a long time for compounding to work its magic.
For us to reach 100 million Canadians by 2100 it would mean that we would need to grow our population by a compounded annual growth rate of just 1.18% per year. On our current population base, that would mean about 490,000 new people next year. To put this into perspective, since Confederation in 1867, Canada's population growth rate has averaged around 1.2% per year.
So by arguing that we want to reach 100 million Canadians by 2100, we are, in a way, just saying "we should continue what we've been doing since 1867 and not change a whole lot." The status quo should inevitably lead us to 100 million people during this time period.
Of course, history isn't exactly the same. Canada's fertility rate was much higher in previous years. At the beginning of the 20th century it was nearly five children per woman. And in 1960, it was 3.81 births per woman, which placed us ahead of the US.
Today, we are 1.26 births per woman (2023), compared to 1.66 in the US (2022). We are now among the countries classified as having "lowest-low fertility." Meaning, we're sub 1.3. What this means is that we are now more dependent on immigration to maintain the same growth rate as before.
At the same time, it's not like we're unaccustomed to high immigration. Between 1901 and 1921, Canada's population increased by almost 3% a year on average. This was in large part because of immigrants from Europe, specifically the British Isles. And between 1901 and 1911, alone, Canada welcomed 1.2 million people. This is at a time when we had just over 5 million people in the entire country.
So in the end, 100 million Canadians by 2100 is probably not all that ambitious. A compound annual growth rate of 1.5% would, for example, have us grow to over 127 million people. That would be more of a stretch. There's also the important question of how quickly are we growing relative to other countries.
Whatever the exact target, I stand by what I said before. We should be aiming to lower the cost of living for Canadians, and in particular housing costs. We should make it easier for families to have more babies, should they choose to. And we should continue to attract the smartest and most ambitious people from around the world.
Last month, I wrote a post called, More people, fewer new homes. And in it, was a chart showing that for the 12 months ending July 1, 2023, Toronto grew by approximately 126,000 people, and the Greater Toronto Area grew by about 233,000 people. Big numbers. At the end of the post, I also mentioned that this is more growth than the city has seen over the six preceding years.
But how does this compare to other cities in Canada and the US? If we look at only central cities (not metro areas), Toronto is, in fact, first. Canadian central cities, in general, also seem to be growing more quickly than their US counterparts. After Toronto is Calgary, which added nearly 87,000 people for the same time period.
Looking at metro areas, Toronto is still first. I don't know why the ~222k figure, here, doesn't reconcile with the ~233k figure from last month's post, but presumably it's some sort of boundary difference. In any event, Toronto is first. But now, once you include metro areas, US cities do much better in this list. Number two is Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington.
This difference between central cities and metro areas likely tells us something about the way in which these city regions are growing. Still, it would be interesting to see how much of this population growth is being accommodated through infill development vs. greenfield development. One way to measure that might be to look at changes in the footprint of their built up areas.
For more about the above two charts, check out this recent post from TMU's Center for Urban Research and Land Development.
A few days ago I tweeted this chart out (from Statistics Canada):
It is a list of the densest downtowns in Canada (people per square kilometer). But to be more precise, it is a list of the densest primary downtowns for each census metropolitan area.
In the case of Toronto, for instance, it considers downtown Toronto, but it does not consider downtown Mississauga, downtown Brampton, or any other "downtowns" across the CMA. And in the case of Vancouver, it ignores important centers such as Burnaby.
Many were quick to point this out on Twitter and it is a fair comment. Our cities are often more polycentric than a chart like this might make it seem.
The other thing to consider is that these density numbers are dependent on what you assume as the boundary for each downtown. For downtown Vancouver it's a fair bit easier because it is a peninsula surrounded by water.
But for downtown Toronto, it's more nebulous. Where do you draw the line? In this case, Statistics Canada is using the same downtown boundary as what's in our Official Plan, but that happens to include the lower-density University of Toronto lands. So are we comparing apples to apples?
I don't know. But go Hamilton!